Labor Newsletter - May 2026
Themes
LABOR NEWS
Labor Measures for the Runoff Elections
Supreme Decree No. 007-2026-TR establishes the following provisions applicable to private-sector employers:
For Polling Station Members (Mesa de Sufragio):
- Polling Station Members (Mesa de Sufragio) selected by lottery who completed the training process and effectively perform such role: They are entitled to one day of paid leave that is not subject to compensation. This leave must be granted within 90 days following the election date. The timing of the leave shall be determined by mutual agreement between the employer and the employee; if no agreement is reached, the employer may determine the date.
- Polling Station Members selected by lottery who did not complete the training process, or who were selected from among the voters present and effectively perform such role: They are entitled to one day of paid leave subject to compensation, to be taken on June 8, 2026. The hours not worked must be made up within the following 10 calendar days, or at such time as determined by the employer based on operational needs.
For voters:
- Voters who work in a geographic area different from their designated polling location: Provided they can prove that they voted, they are entitled not to work on Friday, June 5, Saturday, June 6, Sunday, June 7, and Monday, June 8, 2026. Any working days taken off are subject to compensation, and the method for making up the hours must be agreed upon between the employer and the employee. In the absence of an agreement, the employer shall determine the manner of compensation.
- Voters whose work schedule coincides with election day and who work within the same geographic area as their designated polling location: They are entitled to reasonable periods of time off to cast their vote, either at the beginning of or during the workday. Such time off is subject to compensation.
INSPECTIONS
Failure to record time spent changing into work attire does not, by itself, constitute a violation of attendance recordkeeping rules.
The Labor Inspection Tribunal (TFL) clarified that the question of whether time spent changing work attire forms part of the working day is distinct from compliance with the obligation to maintain attendance records. In the case under review, the TFL noted that the alleged misconduct actually concerned the employer’s failure to include time spent changing attire as part of the working day.
On this basis, the TFL concluded that the facts could not be properly classified under Article 25.19 of the Regulations of the General Labor Inspection Law, which governs infringements related to attendance recordkeeping. The issue at hand concerned the determination of which periods should be considered part of the working day—i.e., what qualifies as effective working time—rather than any deficiency in the act of recording attendance itself.
Accordingly, the TFL held that the conduct had been incorrectly categorized, resulting in a violation of the principles of legality (typicity) and due process. The sanction imposed was therefore set aside.
(Resolution No. 0681-2026-SUNAFIL/TFL-First Chamber).
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
Not every fatal workplace accident requires the fine to be calculated based on the principal employer’s entire workforce.
The Labor Inspection Tribunal (TFL) reached this conclusion in a recent case in which the principal employer had been fined more than PEN 300,000 following the fatal accident of a contractor’s employee at its facilities.
The worker was preparing clay covers for the opening of an elevated tank when, without authorization or prior scheduling, he decided to install one of the covers himself and fell from a height to the ground. The lower administrative instances sanctioned the principal employer for deficiencies in its Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment and Control Measures Matrix (IPERC), calculating the fine based on the total number of employees on the principal employer’s payroll.
However, the TFL declared the sanction null and void, finding that the authorities had failed to accurately determine the circumstances surrounding the accident and whether employees of both companies were present in the area where the incident occurred. Such analysis was necessary to determine which party bore the duty of prevention and the extent of that responsibility.
The TFL emphasized that only after identifying the specific circumstances of the accident—including the location and the workers present—could it be determined whether the legal surcharge applied and whether the fine should be calculated based on the principal employer’s entire workforce or solely on the contractor’s employees assigned to the principal employer’s premises.
(Resolution No. 713-2026-SUNAFIL/TFL-First Chamber).
MONTHLY REMINDER
SUNAFIL issues guidance letters requesting information on the payment of the May 2026 Compensation for Length of Service (CTS).
SUNAFIL has been requesting various employers to complete a form requiring, among other information, the date on which the CTS deposit was made, the number of employees who received the benefit, and the total number of employees on the payroll. Employers are also being asked to submit a screenshot evidencing completion and registration of the form.
These requests form part of SUNAFIL’s monitoring and verification efforts regarding employers’ compliance with CTS payment obligations.